Why audiophiles are different (explained with color)

**** There is some large differences in intelligence, ****

Obviously.

One can go back through old threads and see just how outraged and indignant some are at the descriptions used to convey what we hear. Complaints of over the top language and hyperbole are disparaged with the heat of a thousand suns. 

Could it be that that is the latent underpinnings of the refusals to accept what is described? Can objectivists be so limited that anything other than a measurement can set them off? Think back on the movie, Contact, when Jodi Foster's character (a scientist who relies on measurements) tries to describe a beautiful celestial event and fails, and then goes onto to say, "They should have sent a poet."

Consider also, the movie, Arrival, where the more a linguist learns an alien language, the more she begins to think and process like one. We all see and hear things somewhat differently depending on our own life experiences and how we're wired. Some just resist too hard.

All the best,
Nonoise

Interesting; and interesting comments.

Some are simply not wired to be particularly discerning; generally, in some cases and specifically in others. One comes across this in relation to different areas of life and not only as concerns sound. As the OP points out this is not a put down, and why is it surprising to anyone that this should be the case? It is possible to develop the ability, but first one has to be open to the reality and the possibility.

Related to the subject of perception and discernment of nuance, one aspect of sound which seldom receives enough attention is rhythmic nuance in music. Spatial and frequency response information is often discussed in detail and there is plenty of reasonably adequate language used to describe these; even if as has been pointed out, some turn indignant at its use. Timbre, which along with rhythm/dynamic nuance are the most foundational aspects of the sound of music, receives some attention; although still not with the kind of detail that it deserves given its importance. However, for some reason rhythm (dynamic nuance) receives scant consideration and has the least developed vocabulary used to describe the very fine details of its musical expression. The somewhat commonly used “PRAT” does not do justice nearly well enough to the details of rhythmic nuance in a musical performance which are every bit as numerous and varied as those describing issues of frequency response and sound staging.

"elitist drivel" you say....
Thanks for sharing.

Complaints of over the top language and hyperbole are disparaged with the heat of a thousand suns.

haha - we wouldn’t want to disappoint.

rhythmic nuance in a musical performance which are every bit as numerous and varied as those describing issues of frequency response and sound staging.

Are you talking about the style of the rhythm the music is performed as, or how it’s portrayed in playback systems?
I’m not sure what you’re talking about?
I’ve been dancing Latin styles for close to 20 years now, and the nuances in the style and tempo largely determine how I interpret the music into a series of movements related to what I am hearing, and in turn my dance partner is lead into the moves. She also uses queues in the style of the music for her taking direction and moving with the music.
@frogman
Recognising these nuances doesn’t appear to me to pertain particularly to the playback of music?
Please elaborate on what specifically you mean?

When I run "elitist drivel" through my trusty decoder ring it comes out, "So far beyond my comprehension I will throw an insult and hope nobody notices how mindless it is."

No such luck.

Language/perception is another good one covered by Harley. He uses the example of an x-ray, which is nothing but shades of gray, and how when you learn enough about the underlying anatomy, and pathology, and the physics of x-ray after a while it is almost like you can see in 3D. It was little more than a neat metaphor at the time. But now having gone through the program, learned x-ray, and getting quite good at reading films I have to say he was really onto something.

There is a very real debate to be had about which comes first, the word or the understanding. If you read the bible, In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. So there was word, simultaneously God. Which would have to be, since at this point there was no Man, so how could there even be word, in the normal sense of word?

This isn’t just some pie in the sky nonsense either, certainly not elitist drivel (although it may well be hard to follow) because it is our everyday experience.

In the beginning I could not for the life of me hear any difference between CD players. They all sounded exactly the same. I even was in a demo one time where the customer compared and he couldn’t hear any difference either. So I know this is not super easy or innate but rather takes a bit of skill.

At the same time I was reading and trying to learn the glossary of audio terms I was listening and trying to figure out what they meant. How to connect the words to the experience.

It was all very frustrating until suddenly one day, Aha! That is what it is! Something flipped and I knew what I was hearing and was sure of it, and could describe it. Talk about it. Before it was all just, Well it sounds expensive. Better. Vague, like that.

I don’t know how other people get there. I don’t know that a lot of them ever do. Many may well go their whole lives ridiculing "elitist drivel" without ever understanding a word of it. Oh well.